Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I give my time and money to many organizations I believe in. When choosing an organization to support I ask 1. Does the organization make responsible choices which benefit those (people or animals) they promise to serve? 2. Is the organization fiscally responsible? 3. Does the organization uphold their stated mission? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. The choice of adding two tiger cubs to the menagerie at the park was highly irresponsible because it does not benefit the animals in the center or potential visitors. It does not uphold their stated mission of rescuing abandoned and neglected animals. And if the organization is so desperate for money, why on earth would they put further strain on their already dire financial situation by adding more animals?
As a non-profit that relies on public support, Genesis has alienated the public as evidenced in the amount of feedback expressing dissatisfaction with the addition of the tiger cubs. So in response to Patric Vacca’s issue with the “complainers”, Genesis should use this opportunity to realize that they are accountable to a compassionate public that wants the best for Genesis and the animals in their care. And if they want the support of the people, they will have to work with them to create an organization that the public will be happy to support.
I found a report at the Albright library, from maybe 1989 or 1990, that outlined expanding and updating the zoo. Of course, we know this was never implemented, but it could provide a few ideas on how to update the facility in an economical manner. I think the best thing to do would be to find new homes for a number of the existing animals, not replace deceased ones, and work on creating adequate environments for the animals that remain. As I have said before, I think holding GWC to AZA standards is a smart move, and if they could receive guidance from the AZA in making changes to the center, good for all involved. I do not see what good it would be for the city to step in and mandate changes on their own, as I assume that there is most likely nobody on staff with formal training in operating a zoo.
Your ideas seem to me like to form an important part of what would be a good plan. But I think that you also have to consider who owns the animals (right now it's the GWC), and who would be responsible for the overall management of the zoo. As you mentioned, it seems doubtful that the current staff possess the appropriate training--not only in animal care, but in financial management, public relations, etc. Really, I think the first step would be to form a local zoological society whose board of directors would be composed of people who have skills related to running a good zoo (i.e. animal expertise, legal expertise, educational expertise, etc.). This society's board should hire and fire zoo directors, raise funds, oversee the general management of the zoo, etc. The society would be a stable entity: its individual board members would be replaced from time to time, but the society (and its board) would always be there for the zoo, even while zoo directors come and go and city administrations come and go.
Some of the funding for the zoo would probably have to continue to come from local gov'ts, but it would be the society's job to raise additional funding through grants, programs at the zoo (like membership and animal adoption), corporate donations, etc. Starting small would allow the zoo to slowly build a solid foundation in the community: once the public sees a small, affordable, but decent zoo in place, I suspect that fund-raising would become less difficult. In seeking volunteer help, the zoo should place its emphasis not so much on getting people to do the dirty work, but rather on getting people who can help with the zoo's educational efforts (like retired teachers, student volunteers from local colleges, etc.). The zoo should offer educational programs for park visitors and for local schools and youth groups. This would involve more community members and would make the zoo of real benefit to the community--a situation which would probably help to generate funds. Individuals and local businesses would be proud to be associated with the zoo. Scranton has never had a truly good zoo: if the community were to see a very small zoo that was actually functioning the way a good zoo should, things might work out much more positively than they have in the past for Scranton's zoos (and zoo animals!!).
I would love to see as many of the GWC animals as possible in good homes, but that's a plan which is going to require a huge amount of cooperation from the GWC. If there is a way to secure that cooperation, that would be really wonderful. But I'm not sure exactly how that would work.
(BTW--I will try to look up some info on the cost of enclosures for you in the next day or two.)
Thanks, again, for putting up more quotes comments. I think that one of the comments illustrates a large problem at the zoo quite nicely. Here, again, is the comment:
"Editor: About Genesis Wildlife Center, which is a rescue, and not a zoo, we are lucky to have access to these animals.
We take our kids to the “zoo” and gawk at the animals. Many of the visitors don’t donate; there is no fee like at a regular zoo. They rely on donations, and many times volunteers put their own money out.
No, it’s not an ideal situation. But what about the pets we keep at home? Some are in cages. Is it really so different?
Maybe if more of the complainers shut their mouths and volunteered or donated, the shelter that this woman runs could function a little more to their liking. Volunteer, give money or shut up!"
I think the above comment illustrates Scranton's need for a truly educational zoo. The idea that a zoo is a place to go and "gawk" at caged animals is **way** out of step with modern sensibilities and modern knowledge of animals' needs. Probably part of the reason this person holds this opinion of how animals should be treated is that he/she has never really had an opportunity to stop gawking and start learning.
I suspect that the current divide between those who think the GWC is a great place and those who are horrified by it is due to widely varying educational experiences and opportunities. Having a properly run, small zoo would help to narrow that gap. As it is, children who visit the GWC are learning that gawking is all that's required or expected. They could be learning a **lot** more--and they could also be learning that learning is fun. Kids who become interested in animals can easily progress from there to an interest in general biology, an interest in becoming a vet or a medical doctor, etc.
I give my time and money to many organizations I believe in. When choosing an organization to support I ask 1. Does the organization make responsible choices which benefit those (people or animals) they promise to serve? 2. Is the organization fiscally responsible? 3. Does the organization uphold their stated mission? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. The choice of adding two tiger cubs to the menagerie at the park was highly irresponsible because it does not benefit the animals in the center or potential visitors. It does not uphold their stated mission of rescuing abandoned and neglected animals. And if the organization is so desperate for money, why on earth would they put further strain on their already dire financial situation by adding more animals?
As a non-profit that relies on public support, Genesis has alienated the public as evidenced in the amount of feedback expressing dissatisfaction with the addition of the tiger cubs. So in response to Patric Vacca’s issue with the “complainers”, Genesis should use this opportunity to realize that they are accountable to a compassionate public that wants the best for Genesis and the animals in their care. And if they want the support of the people, they will have to work with them to create an organization that the public will be happy to support.
Excellent, excellent points--and they support what I've been saying for some time now--namely that if the zoo (or sanctuary) were properly run, it would have a much easier time of getting qualified volunteers and cash donations.
One other thought that I've been meaning to mention: those tiger cubs should really have been put in quarantine upon their arrival. As we all know, animals can be harboring pathogens that are about to make them sick, while still appearing perfectly healthy. Putting the cubs in quarantine for a few weeks would have protected the other cats. It would also have given the cubs a relatively quiet place to spend their first few weeks at a new facility, which would probably have made it easier for them to adjust. It was extremely unprofessional, irresponsible, (and potentially inhumane) to immediately put these cubs on exhibit.
I think it's pretty obvious that letter was written by someone associated with the center. It closely follows what we have heard from them in the past, and you would figure that if a member of the general public had written a letter in defense of GWC, they would have focused on some other areas.
The way I read it, especially under the context of it being generated by a person closely associated with the center, is that it's a rather condescending remark aimed at those who visit and 'gawk.'
MBS - I'm surprised you did not comment on the father who wrote in, saying staff let his children handle a baby primate
I think it's pretty obvious that letter was written by someone associated with the center. It closely follows what we have heard from them in the past, and you would figure that if a member of the general public had written a letter in defense of GWC, they would have focused on some other areas.
The way I read it, especially under the context of it being generated by a person closely associated with the center, is that it's a rather condescending remark aimed at those who visit and 'gawk.'
MBS - I'm surprised you did not comment on the father who wrote in, saying staff let his children handle a baby primate
Well, my only excuse is that I was reading through the comments in a bit of a rush before running off to do an errand. Shame on me!
First, you're probably right about the source of the gawking comment. At any rate, I think there **is** a fair amount of gawking going on at the GWC, primarily because that's about the only thing the GWC has to offer. Unfortunately, the gawking is not only not educational; after a few minutes it really isn't that interesting either, because if you don't have a proper context for the animal behavior you're observing (i.e. if you don't have some idea of what the animals are doing and why), it's a bit like watching a TV show that is being broadcast in some language you don't understand. It may look cute or funny for a couple of minutes, but then your interest will start to wane. Add some subtitles, though, and the show may suddenly be great.
Second, re the extremely disturbing issue of the child being allowed to hold the baby primate: I can't believe I missed that!!!!! (I really do have to start getting more sleep. ) Anyway, I **really** can't believe the GWC allowed that!!!! (Well, actually, at this point I'm ready to believe just about anything about that place.) The fact that a minor was involved is mind-boggling. What's going to be next over at the GWC? A contest to see which center visitor can stick their hand the farthest distance down the cougar's throat? Sorry for the sarcasm, but that place is really nuts (to put it mildly--there are some other words I have in mind to describe the GWC that I won't use here). Please, everyone: if you take your kids to the GWC, supervise them very, very carefully and do **not** assume that the staff members know what they're doing!!!!!
Man oh man--the GWC is a great, big, fat tragedy/lawsuit waiting to happen, and since the city is involved with the GWC, if something awful does happen the city may find itself getting pulled into the whole mess as well. The more we learn about the GWC, the worse it gets.
I think it's time for the city to put its foot down. Either there has to be a **lot** more oversight at the center, or the center has to close up shop in Nay Aug and find somewhere else to go. I would really, really hate to see their animals left with no home, but this has gone beyond ridiculous. There are questions at the center pertaining not just to the health and welfare of the animals, but to the health and welfare of the volunteers and visitors. Unbelievable. A naming contest for the cubs is the last thing we should be worried about at the center!!!! It's time to quickly get real, before something horrible happens at the center and we all have to walk around for the rest of our lives asking ourselves why we didn't do something to stop the tragedy before it occurred. Pretty soon those cute little cubs will be very dangerous. Even now, they have to be handled very carefully: their claws and teeth are already dangerous, particularly to small children. And the director and her staff don't seem to understand that an adult cougar is dangerous, so they probably really don't understand how potentially dangerous the cubs could be. Again, I urge anyone visiting that place to be very careful and to report any potentially dangerous behavior to the USDA.
I think it's pretty obvious that letter was written by someone associated with the center. It closely follows what we have heard from them in the past, and you would figure that if a member of the general public had written a letter in defense of GWC, they would have focused on some other areas.
The way I read it, especially under the context of it being generated by a person closely associated with the center, is that it's a rather condescending remark aimed at those who visit and 'gawk.'
MBS - I'm surprised you did not comment on the father who wrote in, saying staff let his children handle a baby primate
A few more thoughts re the handling of the baby primate:
1) Where did this primate come from? Why did the center have a "newborn baby" primate? Was it perhaps conceived and born there, and if so, why did the overcrowded center allow its animals to breed?
2) While this primate may have been too small to injure a child (I don't know what sort of primate it was or exactly how old it was, so it's hard to say) there is always the possibility of disease--humans are primates too and some nonhuman primates can carry diseases that can infect humans; also, one problem with nonhuman primates is that humans tend to underestimate their strength--many nonhuman primates are more heavily muscled than humans, so we tend to look at the relatively small size of these animals and figure that they're safe to be around, when in fact, that is not the case;
3) removing the baby primate from its mother, even for a short time, was probably stressful for the baby and the mother; it also teaches the human children that animals are playthings;
4) I took a very quick look at the USDA rules, and depending on exactly how the incident was handled, it may have been a violation of USDA rules. The way I read the rules, the primates were supposed to be under the direct control of a trained handler at all times. So, if the handler held the baby and let the children pet it, that might have been okay, at least as far as the (probably too lenient) USDA rules are concerned. But if the primate was simply handed to the children, then I would think that would mean that the primate was no longer considered to be under the direct control of the handler, and I'm pretty sure that that would be against USDA regs. Part of the problem with just leaning on the USDA to police the place is that the USDA inspectors are only there for short periods--they can't be around to see that the animals are always handled correctly. This is why the center needs to have a director and staff that understand the regulations and respect them. Instead the GWC seems to have a director and staff that love to cuddle and hug animals, whether or not that is good for the animals or the cuddlers; and I think we have some evidence that the staff will try to get away with whatever they believe to be okay, regardless of the advice of properly trained handlers, the AZA, or the USDA. Again, everyone: when visiting the center, please use your own common sense and do not rely on the staff to tell you what is safe and what is not safe.
i believe that the center is no longer operating in the poconos because of divorce. ms. miller's former husband, i believe his name is thomas, is a veterinarian that packed up and moved on according to my understanding. from what i've heard, the sale of the property was part of the divorce settlement. not sure of what her exact qualifications are though. it's just a shame all around. i know that weluv will love this, but i think there were good intentions to begin with that have morphed into something else entirely. i truly believe that this was an interest on both sides of this story, not just the mayor's political career. believe it or not, people actually have ideas of their own and at times approach the city with them! i think that ms. miller had nowhere to go and that the city was sold a sad story about the animals and how they could open up that building and make it work, etc. After getting their foot in the door and accepting money each year from the city for their operation it's now much easier to lash out at the public and feel the employees are being "harassed" (sounds better and more sad and more convincing than taking responsibility for your own upkeep) and also to continue to blame the city. if this group were really responsible stewards of those animals they would further understand that fundraising and public education were just as important as those annoying "gawkers" who, by the way, are the folks leaving donations of whatever they can afford in that cash register. why doesn't someone ask any of the leadership group about their experiences in trying to help the center and what happened in that process?
i believe that the center is no longer operating in the poconos because of divorce. ms. miller's former husband, i believe his name is thomas, is a veterinarian that packed up and moved on according to my understanding. from what i've heard, the sale of the property was part of the divorce settlement. not sure of what her exact qualifications are though. it's just a shame all around. i know that weluv will love this, but i think there were good intentions to begin with that have morphed into something else entirely. i truly believe that this was an interest on both sides of this story, not just the mayor's political career. believe it or not, people actually have ideas of their own and at times approach the city with them! i think that ms. miller had nowhere to go and that the city was sold a sad story about the animals and how they could open up that building and make it work, etc. After getting their foot in the door and accepting money each year from the city for their operation it's now much easier to lash out at the public and feel the employees are being "harassed" (sounds better and more sad and more convincing than taking responsibility for your own upkeep) and also to continue to blame the city. if this group were really responsible stewards of those animals they would further understand that fundraising and public education were just as important as those annoying "gawkers" who, by the way, are the folks leaving donations of whatever they can afford in that cash register. why doesn't someone ask any of the leadership group about their experiences in trying to help the center and what happened in that process?
As I've said before, I don't know what Miller or the mayor were thinking at the beginning of the GWC's relationship with the city. But from what I've been able to piece together, and from my own impressions of the director and staff at the center, the above version of events seems fairly likely. At any rate, whatever the original intentions of any of the involved parties, it should be clear from the recent flood of letters to the paper that the city has a problem on its hands. I hope they can find some way to improve the situation before things get any worse. Does anyone know if there is even any sort of long-term plan for where the tigers will be housed when they are fully grown?
Incidentally, there was a (2007?) Times-Tribune video made of Miller in which she just sort of brushes aside the importance of the contributions made at the door, saying that they don't amount to much. She seemed to prefer to focus instead on the many contributions **she** has made to the center. This is a very bad attitude from someone who should not only be encouraging folks to give, but also expressing appreciation for any donation, no matter how small. A lot of small donations can add up to quite a bit, after all, and for many folks, a small donation is all they can afford. Furthermore, if for any reason Miller finds she can no longer continue her support, she had better have some other system of support in place, or the animals will certainly suffer. In researching this issue, I found that it is pretty common for people to go out and start sanctuaries, run them for a number of years, and then be overwhelmed for whatever reason (death or illness in the family, worsening personal finances, taking in more animals than they can support, etc.). These owners then have to give up the sanctuary, and sometimes the animals end up with no one to provide for them. I have been unable to determine whether Miller has made any provisions for the GWC animals in the event that she can no longer care for them through donations of her own time, money, etc. If she has not made such provisions and one day finds that she can no longer care for the animals, then the city will be in a fine fix, since the animals are all housed in a city-owned building in the middle of one of the city's parks!
Last edited by mbs7; 07-30-2008 at 10:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Animal Health
) Anyway, I **really** can't believe the GWC allowed that!!!! (Well, actually, at this point I'm ready to believe just about anything about that place.) The fact that a minor was involved is mind-boggling. What's going to be next over at the GWC? A contest to see which center visitor can stick their hand the farthest distance down the cougar's throat? Sorry for the sarcasm, but that place is really nuts (to put it mildly--there are some other words I have in mind to describe the GWC that I won't use here). Please, everyone: if you take your kids to the GWC, supervise them very, very carefully and do **not** assume that the staff members know what they're doing!!!!!
